The Pete/Who Fuhrer

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

> >Well, Mark, now that you mention it, I actually prefer both YBYB and ATD over all but one song from Psycho-D
> 
> Mc:
> 
> Well, that's just sad. Now And Then is one of the greatest, most revealing and moving songs Pete has ever written. For instance. And, apparently, you are unable to appreciate it...according to you, you'd prefer "I just like your nose..." over "Now and then you meet a soul, and you fall in love, you can't do a thing about it..." 

It's sad because what I prefer is not what YOU prefer?  Last time I checked, taste in music was subjective, not objective based on the views of Mark L.  If you had actually gotten the point I was making, you would have known that I commented on Pete's work in ROCK music, and I opined that his best ROCK music was with The Who, by far.  If you had bothered to read on, I stated that Pete's solo work was extremely creative and musically brilliant, but was more progressive/alternative.  I prefer hard rock, so for me, Pete's best work in ROCK was with the Who... BY FAR! 

<<Perhaps it's different when you've actually experienced feelings like that...I don't know. Early Morning Dreams...I Am Afraid...these are songs of deep feelings. "Rocking out" is fine, but if that's ALL you want out of a band then I suggest Bad Company instead of The Who.

Yes, I hate Now and Then, but not because of the meaning in the lyrics.  I don't like how it SOUNDS.  When I hear it I have the instant urge to turn it off.  Is it possible for one to recognize a song as wonderfully written without actually liking the song?  Am I allowed to say that Barbra Streisand had a great voice but her music makes me want to leap out of a window?  Tom Petty is one of my favorite song writers, but I hate Don't Come Around Here No More because it's dreary and unpleasant to my ears.  Is that allowed?

The Who is my favorite band because the music both rocks AND has such tremendous depth.  It means the world to me because of how Pete is able to represent such complex feelings, many of which I have and still experience, with music that "gets me off."  This is why I prefer The Who to Kiss (who I hate, BTW) and Bad Company and ACDC.  Is that acceptable?  And I love Heart to Hang Onto, I'm One, LROM, Behind Blue Eyes, Rael, 1921, Tommy Can you Hear Me, Cut My Hair, etc, etc... so it's not just the balls to the wall songs that I appreciate.
 
> And I'm not going to even bother to mention Did You Steal My Money, which could be Townshend's abosolute WORST song. Unless you count How Do You Do It Alone, that is...and Cashe Cashe is a real winner, too. And I'd be hard pressed to say YBYB rocks even in the live versions. It's Pop.

YBYB studio is poppish, but live rocks and kicks ass, IMHO (and it's not one of my favorite Who songs), though I wouldn't care a bit if they never played it live again.  I never said ALL of Pete's Who material was better than ALL of his solo material.  Why can't you get that?
 
> >the Cowboys and the Pittsburg Steelers, and using the 71 Steelers and the 93 
> 
> No, sorry, no sports comparison could ever touch a Who/Townshend comparison. Sports are fleeting, meaningless (unless you are a participant). Townshend's music is Art, timeless, moving, powerful, subtle. The Cowboys and Steelers, let's face it, are about as subtle as a flying mallet. A bunch of big guys running back and forth on a field throwing a ball, and then doing it again next week. Wowie zowie. I'm impressed. (yawn) The next time you feel like watching a football game, why not try reading Lord Of The Rings instead? It would do you good.

You are an absolute ASS!  Who the fuck do you think you are to condescend to me just because I enjoy sports, both watching and playing it?  You're not artsy fartsy, you're artsy Nazi.  To imply that one who likes sports is somehow intellectually inferior is blatant bigotry and prejudice on your part.  What an elitist jerk you are.  My analogy is perfectly on point.  It is unfair to take the worst on something and the best of another and consider it a legitimate basis for comparison.  THAT was the point, not to literally compare Pete's music to the Pittsburg Steelers.
 
> > It's ridiculous to take the best of one and the worst of another and claim it's a fair comparison.
> 
> I agree that comparing two football teams to The Who and Pete Townshend's music is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Get a clue.  You missed the point entirely.

> 
> >like Who songs (shit, what does?).
> 
> I suggest Kiss, then. They always "rock." Or maybe Motley Crue. Van Halen. Rick Springfield (ha ha). You're looking in the wrong place, with The Who. BBE, for instance, isn't a great song because "it rocks." Nor is I'm Free. Or Bargain. Or I'm One. And so on, and so forth.
> 
> From now on I'll only be able to picture you at a concert with hand raised in the "devil horns" sign and shouting excitedly to your friends how "The Who ROCK! They're the BEST because they ROCK! EX-CELL-ENT!" (playing air guitar)

Wrong, as always.  See above point about how The Who rocks AND has tremedous depth.  It is THIS combination that "does it" for me.  

> 
> > Let's compare Quadrophenia to Psycho-D if you want a fair comparison.
> 
> I'd be happy to. Both are great works. Face Dances remains one of The Who's worst albums. White City is also better than 
> FD. And Empty Glass. And Chinese Eyes. Grasp the concept?

You continue to display you're inability to grasp the central issue of my prior post.  Let's compare those Pete albums to his BEST Who work, not his worst.

Mc